Routing unit question

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:22 pm

madcam2us wrote:
They burst through. As everyone (probably including madcam) already knew.
Hopefully there was a bit of TIC there...

A bit, yes. If there was insufficient, I apologise.

If you are adding this issue to the FaQ at least you acknowledge where some could interpret it differently from the authors intent.

Remember, there are several of out here that were not part of the playtesting and are arriving at conclusions within our own groups based on their understanding of the rules...

True.

kal5056 · Post by **kal5056** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:35 pm

Madcam,
I enjoy the back and forth of this and the other boards. Now in the heat of an ongoing battle we will all just have to agree in advance that what gets said (or the tone there of) across a battle table needs to be taken with a grain of salt and all walk away friends.

On the other issue (the only thing I have to worry about if I am in fact a "Dead Man Walking" is that the asterix (My esteemed Team Mate RJ)was not the officer of record on my arrest because he has let it be known that he will quickly be there for purposes of consoling Ms Gino.
Gino
SMAC

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:00 pm

I've always thought this was pretty clear - one base width is the maximum, but others have a different view.

If you are going to put this in in the FAQs Richard, might a couple of diagrams be clearer than words?

Pete

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:24 pm

It can be honestly misread, but a little FAQ text is enough to clarify the limit on shifting for all but the disingenuous.

mhohio · Post by **mhohio** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:36 pm

I appreciate everyones input on this. I could not of set madcam straight on this rule without ALL of u adding your 2 cents....

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:56 pm

philqw78 wrote:But no bases should drop back. They should contract behind those already through the gap. None move backwards.

Except the rules don't support that theory - it only says the obstructed bases are moved to the rear of those that have been able to complete their evade move. There is nothing to say that the "contracting" bases can't go backwards.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:32 am

But bases are not obstructed until they reach the gap. So do not move backwards but shift across behind when they are level with the gap. If the intention of the rule was that evading and routing units move backwards, well

fatismo · Post by **fatismo** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:00 pm

Quick question which is related. Had a very similar situation in a recent game. The player with the routing BG of LH turned 90 degrees (instead of 180) then wheeled and moved away from the pursuing BG, it meant he didn't get as far and got caught buy the pursuer, but avoided the BG behind. Couldn't find anything in rules to say he couldn't do this. (but I thought it was pretty cheesey) Only thing we found was where it says when evading the evader turns 90 or 180 'players choice'.

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:02 pm

fatismo wrote:Quick question which is related. Had a very similar situation in a recent game. The player with the routing BG of LH turned 90 degrees (instead of 180) then wheeled and moved away from the pursuing BG, it meant he didn't get as far and got caught buy the pursuer, but avoided the BG behind. Couldn't find anything in rules to say he couldn't do this. (but I thought it was pretty cheesey) Only thing we found was where it says when evading the evader turns 90 or 180 'players choice'.

Yeah, but evading isn't routing. I'm pretty sure it says routers rout to their rear, but don't have a rule book here.

Hey - that Rhymes

Ian

fatismo · Post by **fatismo** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:04 pm

Their initial rout is away from the enemy, I think, but couldn't find how this has to be acheived eg the turn 90 or 180 question

DaiSho · Post by **DaiSho** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:09 pm

fatismo wrote:Their initial rout is away from the enemy, I think, but couldn't find how this has to be acheived eg the turn 90 or 180 question

Hmm, ok. I guess it's vaguely legal then... so long as he actually made SOME kind of away move (intial rout). I think Napoleons Battles got around this by calling routs 'unformed movement', and they basically just ran around everything so long as there was a gap of 1" (MU). I don't want to re-invent the wheel as I've never come across that situation before, but that would cover a lot of contingencies.

Ian

SirGarnet · Post by **SirGarnet** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:31 pm

fatismo wrote:Quick question which is related. Had a very similar situation in a recent game. The player with the routing BG of LH turned 90 degrees (instead of 180) then wheeled and moved away from the pursuing BG, it meant he didn't get as far and got caught buy the pursuer, but avoided the BG behind. Couldn't find anything in rules to say he couldn't do this. (but I thought it was pretty cheesey) Only thing we found was where it says when evading the evader turns 90 or 180 'players choice'.

This is because evaders might be facing in any direction when they evade. Routers have either their front, flank or rear facing the enemy, and they rout directly away in the initial rout. So normally the rout path is either to front, side or rear of the BG's facing. If they are fighting enemy in two directions, they bisect the angle, so which way to turn to get to directly away would be the question and if it's an 45 degree split I suppose in accordance with the normal practice of the rules it's router's choice but can't check that.

hazelbark · Post by **hazelbark** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:26 am

mhohio wrote:I appreciate everyones input on this. I could not of set madcam straight on this rule without ALL of u adding your 2 cents....

Yes his table pounding is remarkable. Still he will learn if he has patience.